It’s hard to find anything to say about this story that the New York Times has not trumped simply by writing it:

A Safety Valve for Inmates, the Arts, Fades in California

NORCO, Calif. — Fifteen men darted across the room, their faces slathered in greasepaint, reciting lines from “Tartuffe.” The stage, such as it was, was a low-ceilinged recreation room, and the cast was a troupe of felons who had just stepped in from the dusty yard of the California Rehabilitation Center . . . Two years ago, arts in corrections programs were a mainstay of prisons across the country, embraced by administrators as a way to channel aggression, break down racial barriers, teach social skills and prepare inmates for the outside world.

Or, maybe not. Though such activities are supposed to reduce recidivism, Times writer Adam Nagourney acknowledges “there is no conclusive research on that.”

No conclusive research. No conclusive research, not anywhere in the vast offender-validating, crime-denying rabbit warren of California higher education? Not one, single, believable, peer-reviewed study subsidized by all the drooling millionaires of PEN?

In other words, despite the best efforts by armies of superlatively funded academic researchers, nobody could cook up a justification for spending money on those “arts coordinator[s] in each of the 33 California state prisons, overseeing a rich variety of theater, painting and dance.”

“[The] programs have become a fading memory,” the Times laments.

Once, in the golden age of not long ago, there were mimes teaching Moliere on your dime to child molesters; felons riffing Tartuffe with tax dollars. Now, no more.

Mime tear.

Tartuffe, incidentally, is a play that happens to be about distrusting expressions of virtue, and authority in general. So maybe the problem isn’t “the arts.” Maybe the problem is the art being taught, and who is doing the teaching. The Times story inadvertently serves as Exhibit A for this theme:

Only two prison arts programs are left in California, and both rely on volunteers and private contributions. The one here is run by the Actors’ Gang, whose artistic director is the actor Tim Robbins [who] has become nearly as familiar a figure at the prison as the warden himself.

Of course, that “familiarity” comes with a price tag for the rest of us, though you can bet your last button they’re not including our names on the embossed fundraiser invites. It costs money for Tim Robbins to prance around maximum security reliving old movie roles. “The real actors are issued panic buttons to attach to their belts, in case they are cornered,” notes the Times. Why the “real actors” don’t rely on the curative power of aesthetic accomplishment is not explained. But, enough of that; back to Tim Robbins:

Mr. Robbins instructed the inmates to feel fear . . . “What is Tartuffe afraid of?” he said, wearing a wool skullcap and dressed in black. “Being discovered. Because that would mean jail for him.”

“Something is coming after you!” he said urgently to the inmates as they scampered around. “What is it?”

How wry, shouting at prisoners to run away from the police. How, Attica-ey.

Admittedly, Mr. Robbins does have experience successfully encouraging the dreams of aspiring young actors.

Oh, wait, scratch that: Mr. Robbins has experience encouraging the murderers of aspiring young actors who dream of success.

Richard Adan, Murdered by Jack Abbott at 22

Ask the family of Richard Adan. Adan was a 22-year old aspiring actor and playwright who was brutally stabbed to death in 1981 in his own family’s restaurant by Jack Abbott, a sociopathic killer who was supposed to be in prison but had been freed early because Robbins‘ future wife, Susan Sarandon, and others used their star power to obtain his release {Sarandon, in cahoots with Norman Mailer, helped get Abbott released before she met Robbins; Robbins and Sarandon chose to name their son after Abbott a few years later — the original version of this post was incorrect about Robbins’ attendance at Abbott’s 1982 trial — thanks to Cinesnatch for noting the error}.

Robbins‘s future wife Sarandon said she saw artistic talent in Jack Abbott, so obviously he should go free. Bolstered by intense lobbying by the New York Times, New York’s literary elite, and PEN, some pathetic, star-struck losers on the New York State parole board agreed to let Abbott go, even though he told his artistic sponsors that he would kill again, which he did, a mere did six weeks after his release.

Jack Abbott, Toast of New York’s Intelligentsia

So, to summarize: in 1981 Tim Robbins‘ future wife Susan Sarandon was among those who helped get murderer Jack Abbott out of prison on the grounds of Abbott’s perceived artistic “talent.” Abbott immediately satisfied the edgy aesthetics of Susan Sarandon by performing the ultimate act of “outsider” art, stabbing an innocent young man to death outside the man’s family’s restaurant. The day after the murder, the New York Times ran a glowing review of Jack Abbott’s art (I can’t provide a link: the Times has Stalinistically mopped away this reprehensible little bit of its own history). Now, in 2011, the Times runs a story about Robbins teaching theater to violent offenders in order to help them gain early release — because participating in programs like this one is all about gaining points towards release, never mind the claptrap about race harmony and self-actualization.

Yet, somehow, the Times doesn’t feel the need to mention Tim Robbins’ previous record with prisoners and arts programs in this story. Curious choice.

In 1982, Abbott went on trial again. A few of his other supporters, like Norman Mailer, mustered enough big-boy shame this time to cower in the shadows. But not Susan Sarandon: she continued lobbying for Jack Abbott’s release on the grounds that he was a talented artist. Robbins’ especially shameless wife showed up daily for the trial in support of her talented murderer. Later, after she met Tim Robbins, they named their firstborn son after the killer: Jack Henry Robbins.

It is difficult to imagine the degree of callousness it takes to sit in full view of a family mourning for the death of their son while fawning over his killer. Then, to name your child after the killer? That should have been the end of those sickos’ careers. But in Hollywood, Sarandon and Robbins are considered voices of moral authority, not in spite of this heinous inhumanity, but because of it. Sarandon and Robbins weren’t done torturing and degrading crime victims after the Abbott case, however: they and Sister Helen Prejean made the lives of several other victims hell in the process of making their film, Dead Man Walking. They grotesquely rewrote and toned down the crimes, wrote the existence of inconvenient survivors out of the story, and invented the killer’s on-screen remorse wholecloth, all underTim Robbins’ direction.

Robbins chose to disappear victims and crimes. Why does the corrections system of California permit him to continue using taxpayer resources to perpetuate similar whitewashing today? The Times‘ story about Tim Robbins’ touching drama academy behind bars carefully avoids mentioning the crimes these sensitive thespians committed. Reporter Adam Nagourney did not bother to contact the victims of these men, some of them rapists. He didn’t bother to ask the victims for their point of view on the program. Isn’t that what reporters are supposed to do? Instead, we get giggly effervescence (from the slideshow):

The workshops and rehearsals are antic and oddly entertaining: guards can be spotted peering through a window. The inmates, like Matthew O’Day, are animated, campy, energized, liberated and fearlessly engaged, comfortable even playing women in a sea of gang tattoos and muscles.

“Campy, energized, liberated and fearlessly engaged.” “Cops!” cries Tim Robbins, “clapping his hands in delight.” “[R]un,” he shouts. What are these inmates supposed to be learning? What do they learn in other programs, like Changing Lives Through Literature (see here and here), which is taught by anti-incarceration activists who pen long, weepy paeans thanking their offender-students for enriching their pale, law abiding lives? Check out this particularly troubling story.

I first became interested in prisoner education programs when my own rapist got cut loose early (to commit more heinous rapes of his favorite prey, elderly women) because he allegedly completed “college psychology” courses in prison, a fascinating accomplishment for someone who also got time off the front of his sentence for allegedly being mentally slow. Too many prison higher educations programs and arts programs are run like this, and by people like Tim Robbins, who see rapists and murderers only as heroes and rebels striking out righteously against America’s “stultifying, capitalist, fascist state.”

And so, unsurprisingly, the material taught is most frequently about crooked justice and wrongful incarceration. How, again, is this supposed to rehabilitate anyone? It doesn’t, as respected criminologists have observed. Vocational training, GED preparation, 12-step programs — those things often help, and contrary to the fabulists at the Times and elsewhere who claim that prisoners today have no access to enrichment or education, they are available to higher numbers of inmates — and also higher percentages of inmates — than ever.

In contrast, all these fantasy workshops on poetry, Restoration drama performances, and college classes about injustice in America do nothing but stroke offenders’ — and their teachers’ — egos. Reading news stories about such programs, it is impossible not to notice how the teachers pose as acolytes, blaming society for their students’ crimes and praising offenders for their extraordinarily special talents and insights. In this program funded by crime victims and other Virginia taxpayers, Andrew Kaufman brings his young U.Va. students into prison to read books like The Death of Ivan Illyich with offenders. Ivan Illyich, remember, is a story about an unethical judge. The U.Va. students — girls — coo on command over the offenders’ good manners, while judging their own non-felonious classmates harshly. How early they learn what is wanted from them. “All four women said the residents were far less superficial and more respectful to them than many male U.Va. students,” the reporter writes. Really? Did the girls see the offenders’ records? Does Kaufman also take them on field trips to visit their victims?

No. Of course not. In the moral universe occupied by people like this, the only victims are the men behind bars. “Cops,” cries Tim Robbins, “run!” Inmates can still pursue the arts and read books in all of these prisons, of course. It’s just that taxpayers and crime victims are no longer subsidizing anti-American, anti-incarceration, anti-bourgeoise arts camps for inmates, as they were once forced to do. “We enjoyed this real lush period when there was this boom in prison growth,” brags Laurie Brooks, speaking of the time in the early 1980’s when then-governor Jerry Brown forced taxpayers to shell out for “lush” prisoner arts programs.

Remember how well that turned out? Crime rates continued their steady climb until sentencing reform took hold, removing prolific offenders from the streets for longer than a semester or two. So why is it that Tim Robbins, one of the most troubling figures of the pro-offender cultism that resulted in unmeasurable bloodshed and suffering, even permitted to go into California state prisons to hobnob with violent felons? Why do taxpayers and voters allow him to enter correctional institutions and foment his own special brand of resentment towards authority figures and police? Why aren’t victims’ groups up in arms?

My word, those girls from U Va are ignorant souls. They obviously have no idea what a sociopath is or they would have realized that they were just seeing a big show. I hope someday they wake up and realize they owe a gigantic apology to their classmates.

This reminds me of a news story not too long ago about a staffer at the sex offender treatment center who had an affair with an inmate and ruined her life. How she could be working at a place like that and not be aware of what a psychopath is and how they operate is beyond me. I guess if you start with the fantasy that these people can be “cured,” you’ll believe ANYTHING.

Well, Tina, you’ve hit another one out of the park, and absolutely nailed the Tim Robbins theory of criminal justice. (Aw, isn’t he the cutest thing? Why is he in prison? Really? Well, perhaps if the straight, white and up-tight victim hadn’t gotten in his way…”)

Robbins’ acting is, to me, wooden and unconvincing. Others did more creditable jobs in Shawshank, but Robbins turned in a weak performance. To be fair to him, the words someone wrote for him to say weren’t so great, either.

And yes, one Jack Abbot is one too many. Isn’t it odd how Robbins & Co. can sweep so many “stakeholders” in a particular crime, sweep them clean out of sight, to further his destructive, ill-advised agenda. I would love to see him challenged, by a mentally sharp, well informed individual, such as yourself. The right person could make him look about two feet tall.

I am so sorry to hear that you were attacked. It is sickening to realize, and very sad, as well. But it is infuriating that your attacker first had his sentence reduced, and then was given early release.

Recently, a rapist had a heart attack and died, while attacking a woman. It’s too bad that’s not a commonplace event.

Inmates are people. Wheather you like it or not they should and will recive the rights that human beings deserve, including artistic expression. The efforts of Mr. Robbin’s and The Actor’s Gang are not only valid, but should be praised. Prison should be used for rehabilitation, just as this program illustrates. To leave these men here without rehabilitational programs is cruel, sick and frankly, blantantly unamerican. For shame.

Robbins and Sarandon didn’t know each other in 1982. They met on the set of Bull Durham in 1987. She couldn’t have brought their son to the trial, because Jack Henry wasn’t born until 1989. There are some serious factual errors here.

You are correct that Jack Henry Sarandon, child of Sarandon and Tim Robbins, wasn’t born until after the trial. I will have to do more research to find the citation I used in order to recommend altering it but will correct it immediately on my site.

Nevertheless, Sarandon made a spectacle of herself at the trial, abusing the family of the murder victim sickeningly with behavior that even Norman Mailer couldn’t stomach. It was Robbins and Sarandon who were so enamored of a vicious spree killer that they named their baby after him. That child grew to an adult who likewise doesn’t seem to feel the need to alter his name out of respect for the murdered.

Another factual error that may seem trivial, but was used a lot: Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were NEVER married. They were partners, but have split up in the last couple of years. However, they were never legally married and never claimed to be.